Sunday, November 12, 2017

Imagine, there are some people who think wild creatures have the right to live

Researchers at Colorado State University and The Ohio State
University have found that a cultural backlash stemming from the rise of
populism may limit opportunities for state fish and wildlife agencies to adapt
to changing social values in the United States.

The team reached this conclusion by analyzing more than 12,000
surveys from 19 states and studying ballot initiatives related to hunting.

Based on the new study, researchers found that in states with
the largest change in social values, individuals who held traditional values
had lower levels of trust in the state wildlife agency.

In contrast to traditional values, in which people believe
wildlife exists for their benefit, the researchers describe an emerging set of
values, in which wildlife and humans are seen as part of a connected social
community, as mutualism.

In the case of human-wildlife conflict, traditionalists would be
more likely to support lethal wildlife control methods while mutualists would
be more supportive of restrictions on humans.

"With a growing proportion of mutualists in a state,
traditionalists begin to lose trust in the state's fish and wildlife
agency," said Michael Manfredo, lead author on the paper and head of CSU's
Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources.

"Based on our research, wildlife agencies, which focus on
statewide mandates, increasingly engage with people who are mutualists, looking
for common ground, and the traditionalists would feel this challenges their
influence in policymaking."

The team found a growth in ballot initiatives to protect hunting
rights from 2000 to 2016, in contrast with the number of ballot initiatives
from the previous decade that sought to restrict certain hunting and trapping
practices.

Researchers said this indicates a cultural backlash that they
predict will intensify conflicts over wildlife management and may constrain
institutional change. Wildlife management agencies may need to explore new
models of governance that encompass diverse values, the study authors said.

The study was published in September 2017 in Biological
Conservation.

Populism in politics,
wildlife management

The recent trend toward populist politics has occurred, in part,
as a result of a cultural backlash, where select segments of society have
rallied against progressive social changes of the later 20th and early 21st
centuries.

This trend includes the Brexit vote in England, election of
Donald Trump as U.S. President, and increased representation of populist
parties in European parliaments.

In the case of wildlife, researchers examined the clash of
values held by different segments of the public.

Over the latter half of the 20th century, traditional values
that emphasize the priority of human uses of wildlife have slowly been giving
way to mutualism values that shape views of wildlife as fellow beings in a
common social community.

At the state level, this trend is associated with increases in
urbanization, education and income. These opposing values contribute to
conflict over support for various forms of wildlife policy.

One area where the researchers looked at for evidence of
backlash was in the surge of wildlife-related ballot initiatives. In the 1990s,
there was a rise in initiatives that limited certain forms of hunting and
fishing. In Colorado, initiatives included a ban on spring bear hunting in 1992
and the elimination of recreational trapping in 1996.

Between the turn of the century and the present, however, there
has been a counter surge of ballot initiatives, most of which focus on
protecting the right to hunt. This trend, the authors said, offers evidence of
actions among traditional groups to fight back against change.

To dig more deeply, the researchers used data from a 2004 study
of wildlife values in which 12,673 people from 19 western states were surveyed.
The researchers looked to see if they could determine the basis for backlash at
what appeared to be a critical transition time.

Findings from the 2004 study support the presence of a backlash.
While most agencies are primarily funded by the sale of fishing and hunting
licenses, eight out of 10 mutualists support a funding model in which all
residents pay and are all represented in the policymaking process.

In contrast, only six in 10 traditionalists support that model.
Using an approach that measures the potential for conflict across many issues,
the authors also found that states with higher proportions of mutualists have a
much greater likelihood of disputes over wildlife issues.

"With the diverse values held by citizens, wildlife
managers and wildlife commissioners across the country are finding it more
challenging to reach decisions that are socially acceptable and politically
sustainable," said Chris Smith, western field representative for the
Wildlife Management Institute.

The authors said that in the future, wildlife conservation faces
daunting challenges such as resource degradation and overuse, human
development, drought and climate change.

"The greatest challenge might be in finding ways to bring
oppositional groups in the public together to address those issues," said
Manfredo, a professor in the CSU W